Uber drivers are freelancers rules NYC - <AUTHOR> http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150714/TRANSPORTATION/150719940

<comment><USER2> What's the real significance of this? Aren't labor relations primarily governed by federal and state law rather than by individual cities?

For example, if the IRS thinks your employer should be paying you on a W-2 according to federal law, NYC and NY State can't overrule that. And if you sue the IRS to challenge this, the case will end up in a federal court.</comment>


I am helping my country Philippines through Java Tutorials,what do you think? - <AUTHOR> http://www.adobocode.com

<comment><USER2> I like it a lot and +1 you're from the Visayas, and you have a pet snake :)

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, tnx bro.. im from Visayas too.. cebu :-)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> i had this submitted at reddit but they turned it down.. i guess they support more on whats goin on on their contenent (West) and less on the 3rd world countries.. :-(

</comment><comment><USER3> broken link. :D

<comment><AUTHOR> you may want to change your DNS to 22.214.171.124 .. thats google's default DNS..</comment></comment>


2015 Engineering Salaries Reviewed - <AUTHOR> http://rivierapartners.com/engineering-salaries-reviewed-3/ <comment><USER2> If this data is anywhere near reliable, then a large number of engineers are taking positions in the Bay Area with a horrible financial outlook.

The median one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is something like $3,500 a month now. To keep that at 30% of _gross_ income (which is still pretty bad), you need to be earning $140k a year. And yet, these graphs suggest that only "senior" engineers make $140k. And they top out soon after that (the "lead" roles are only making ~$160k).

If a company is asking you to move to the bay area, demand a salary that will allow you to live here without having to take roommates or go into debt. If not, make sure you're making a _calculated_ gamble, and be sure you're getting some other concrete value for the financial sacrifices you're making -- career experience and reputation, for example.

If you're starting a startup in San Francisco...well, don't do it. Unless your customer base is here, you should go somewhere cheaper.

<comment><USER3> What's unspoken is that their list is probably all startups.

If you work at established companies, or late stage startups, the total equity package is going to be higher.

That is, I'm pretty sure that if you work for Uber, Twitter, FB, Netflix, etc, you will be making well north of 200k+ a year if you are senior+.

<comment><USER4> This comes up time and time again on HN. Due to the demographic here, everyone seems to know at least SOMEONE who makes $200K+, but there's no evidence that these compensation packages are anything but outliers (even including equity), no matter the age/vintage of company.

<comment><USER5> There's plenty of evidence. Just look at glassdoor:

Google senior eng total comp is $252k annually: [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software- Engin...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engineer-San- Jose-Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,31_IL.32,40_IM761.htm)

Google Staff engineer is $350k annually with base salary over $200k: [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software- Engine...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engineer-San- Jose-Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,30_IL.31,39_IM761.htm)

<comment><USER4> Outlier employees of an outlier company

Editing my curt response:

The original poster asserted that he/she was "pretty sure" that if you work for [established companies], you "will" be making well north of 200k+, as if it was a certainty or at least a high probability. I don't deny that some outlier companies have some outlier employees that make that much, I'm just questioning the claim that it's usual to make that in these companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why are they using a Hardware Engineering motif (blueprint) to represent Software Engineering salaries?

The unnecessary theme makes the chart extremely difficult to read regardless, especially when you try to use _lines of differing directions_ to differentiate categories for a stacked column chart. Also, unlabeled charts because _minimalism_.

And then _unlabeled pie charts using lines of differing directions to differentiate category_.

This infographic is the definition of chart junk.

<comment><USER7> I wonder why anyone posts anything on hacker news when this is the kind of comment that results.

<comment><USER6> I have absolutely no problem with stylized data visualization (see my submission history). But when someone designs a visualization that _makes the data harder to read_ for no reason other than "kewlness," it can be very annoying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a very narrow segment of the engineering market.

Maybe the title should read "2015 Bay Area Software Engineering Salaries Reviewed."

<comment><USER9> Yep, this report is highly contextual and it would be nice if they were more transparent as to how the data was aggregated.

While the last infographic implies the Bay Area it's not documented as a certainty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> this is pretty terrible compensation for such high impact work in such a high cost of living area. 150k is less than many Bart workers make a by the time they are senior level ([http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay- area/2014](http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2014)). Many of these companies are making billions, further increasing the wealth gap of the founders vs. the ones who create their fortunes on the ground level.

The companies have even been proven to collude to suppress wages. Software engineers are in desperate need of unions

</comment><comment><USER11> Clearly only applies to the Bay Area. I guess they don't invest far from home?

<comment><USER12> Riviera is a recruitment firm, not an investment firm, so I'd assume their data comes from positions they've been hired to fill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Where are all the $250K+ offers we hear about new grads getting at FB and Google? It would be interesting to see more detail than just the average, and to see stock options accounted for.

</comment><comment><USER14> I recently got an offer from a Series B company in San Francisco that claimed their compensation was calculated to be the median offered by "Bay area startups funded by top-tier VCs" I turned them down because it was about 2/3 of what I would have needed to keep the same quality of life that I have living and working in Los Angeles.

</comment><comment><USER15> Would be nice to see non-sf salaries..</comment>


How technology is driven by time to market rather than quality - <AUTHOR> http://www.dansdata.com/gz097.htm <comment><USER2> the article starts saying that if 3dfx didn't start the 3d revolution, someone else would - and ends up saying that if IBM didn't introduce the Personal Computer, no one else would...?</comment>


Cinpy - or C in Python - <AUTHOR> http://amundblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/cinpy-or-c-in-python.html <comment><USER2> You might also want to look at Scipy's weave:

<http://www.scipy.org/Weave>

It's not as small or self-contained, but it looks to be more actively maintained.

A comparison with some other optimization methods:

<http://www.scipy.org/PerformancePython>

</comment><comment><USER3> So C is the new assembler. I remember the days when you optimized your C code by writing inline assembly.

</comment><comment><USER4> Very nice. If any folks interested in Ruby are reading the article and feeling jealous, make sure to check out RubyInline ( <http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Products/RubyInline/> ) - it's pretty solid.

Might do a direct comparison of the efficiency of the bridging between RubyInline and Cinpy if I get some time. I _suspect_ Python would win just because Ruby's object bridging is quite intense..</comment>


US homebuilding surges as coronavirus sparks flight to suburbs, rural areas - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-homebuilding-surges-as-coronavirus-crisis-sparks-flight-to-suburbs-rural-areas-idUSKCN24I1OY <comment><USER2> This strikes me as a kind of leading or promotional/industry/PR wire story. This whole virus thing has only really been a thing for, what, about 4-5 months in total? None of the developers would have been able to find land, make deals, develop projects, get permits done under the lockdown, solve the staffing problems under this situation, and get new projects going that weren't already in the pipeline.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. But also; so people are leaving the cities where they appear to have careers/work/friends and are heading to the suburbs during lockdown because of the virus situation, while businesses are laying off and contracting/shrinking/making losses and are going out of business?

I know several people who have moved out of cities over the last several years actually for various reasons, mostly the accumulating cost and declining benefits, especially with the consequences of political and government policies starting to impact communities along with the overall cost of living increases. This is not a coronavirus trend, even if that has only accelerated things.

What this likely is, is an industry PR story to place the thought into people's minds to move to the suburbs to, with slight panic, hope they can find buyers for all the buildings they were committed to build even before this whole situation. It's the same old developer industry super-cycle; push and pull, ebb and flow of urban and suburban development cycles, only exacerbated by poor material and low skill construction meant to last for one cycle.

<comment><USER3> I'm in the architecture field. We work on single family, multifamily, clubhouses and student housing on a national scale with some of the largest builders in the USA. I can tell you that we are very busy with current and new projects in the pipeline. I can't explain what people are doing, this is just to give perspective from the architectural point of view.

I just spoke with a coworker who used to live in Chicago and moved to the suburbs. He said that homes in his neighborhood have been selling quickly and prices are increasing exponentially. The condo in the city he sold in February is the last to sell. Six are on the market.

<comment><USER4> Just a second anecdata point. I was looking for a plot of land for the past few years. I'm not going to say where, but let me just summarize that I have been monitoring pretty much all the areas I've travelled (roughly 1/6 of the US) to just in case something nice popped up. The available land options have quite astonishingly disappeared starting in February. The ones that remain are bad ones (next to trains or under an airport landing) and even those have prices going up. In some areas there is literally nothing left, and when one does pop into the market, the price is about DOUBLE what it was a year ago.

I don't have like any analytics on this, but I'm sure Zillow could easily produce something.

Also just in case people are wondering, for land with a house, I see a trend where the listings are marked up about 100k more than it was a year ago. The actual sales price of those listings isn't kinda available yet for much of the pandemic (since that data lags behind the when it drops off the market a few months). But a year ago if you saw a house at 200k it will sell at 200k. 300k will sell at 250, 400 will sell at 320, 500 will sell at 400, 600 will sell 450ish (you get the idea). I have the feeling that the speed at which 500k rural homes are selling that they are going for very close to asking now.

<comment><USER5> > But a year ago if you saw a house at 200k it will sell at 200k. 300k will > sell at 250, 400 will sell at 320, 500 will sell at 400, 600 will sell > 450ish (you get the idea)

I have not seen this in suburbs of cities in the Rocky Mountains or West coast. If anything, the houses would sell for more than list price for anything in the $500k to $1M range.

<comment><USER6> In Southern California, I'm seeing prices remain about the same and just recently start to fall a bit.

A lot of people are taking property off the market right now rather than drop the price severely.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think that many people are buying houses right now. Most people are in a wait and see mode.

<comment><USER4> Is that in an urban setting or rural? I'm seeing the change in rural.

<comment><USER6> suburb

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are definitely markets that are doing well and will continue to do so for a while. Rural housing for sure. This will probably cause a push for some people to move out of the city and into the burbs.

BUT, it's really too early to know what effects this is going to have on the housing market. Right now, most unemployed people are getting fairly generous unemployment benefits. Meanwhile, in many states, you aren't allowed to foreclose right now.

Once the foreclosure moratoriums and unemployment benefits end, it's anyone's guess what's going to happen to housing.

Edit: my uncle is a contractor who builds multi-family residences. I remember he stopped building and moved to house remodeling when there was a building boom in 2006-2008, when he felt that his local market was being overbuilt (turned out to be a great decision in retrospect). Houses being built does _not_ always mean a strong housing market. Plenty of home builders are short sighted.

<comment><USER8> How many of the unemployed are wealthy enough to own though?

Canada is facing surging real estate prices and while there are also masses of unemployed, few of those people had the money for home ownership anyway.

<comment><USER9> In Oklahoma right now you can be unemployed and earning $58,240 in annualized unemployment pay. That number will drop to $27,040 (still annualized) at the end of July unless the Congress intervenes. However, even $27k in Oklahoma would be enough to afford a small house in the suburbs of a city.

<comment><USER10> >However, even $27k in Oklahoma would be enough to afford a small house in the suburbs of a city.

Sounds like I need to move to Oklahoma... I'm making about $44k in rural South Dakota but with the way housing prices have been around here the last few years, I am nowhere near being able to comfortably afford a mortgage (I _can_ afford one, for a cheap, old, needs-a-lot-of-TLC-or-30-miles-out-of-town house, but not while also affording much else).

<comment><USER9> I have friends who live there and go on and on about the cheap cost of living. I've visited and it wasn't a place I wanted to live. To each their own. It does seem absurdly cheap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> WSJ has been writing about this a while during COVID[0]. Their take seems to be that people don't want to move, so they aren't putting their houses up for sale. This means decreased supply of existing houses. So reduced supply plus really low interest rates have led to increasing housing prices. This probably helps motivate builders to get more houses built.

Then you have the added fact that COVID has made your home the place where you spend all your time. As I've seen my California co-workers joke about, they spent a bunch of money on an apartment right near work so their commute would be short, but it's a tiny apartment. This is now biting them, which is why lots of people are going elsewhere during this time. It's also leading to rent prices dropping across the country (as those high-price apartments near job/downtown/important spots don't matter as much.

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-home-prices-are-rising- duri...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-home-prices-are-rising-during-the- pandemic-11588671002)

<comment><USER12> Great point.

I've been wondering -- if commute times suddenly become close to irrelevant, because most hours worked are remote, that changes a ton of housing calculations, right?

Remote work is over-represented in tech though, so I don't know how much of the population it will really effect, since we're primarily a services economy.

Not sure what the effect size is, but if I could easily live anywhere it'd probably be more remote.

<comment><USER13> Sure. There are advantages to being within range of a major city for the occasional day/evening trip or weekend: eating out, airport, theater, health care, etc.

That said, some of those things are less of a big deal for some people than others and stretching the distance to, say, a 2 hour drive increases the area that you could potentially live in enormously if you don't need to worry about a commute. (And for a rare visit to an office, you can just stay at a hotel if you're normally remote.)

Of course, for some, there are advantages to living somewhere that is truly remote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If there's a silver lining to this pandemic, it will be an end to the 20+ year trend of "you have to be in one of 10 cities to have a real career."

This is terrible for the majority of the country. It leads to brain drain and IMHO is a major force in political hyper-polarization.

It's _also_ terrible for those 10 cities, as it leads to real estate hyperinflation in those areas that makes housing unaffordable. People who aren't "white collar" can barely afford to live at all, and even people who make comfortable six figure salaries must strain to get into housing and it negatively impacts their ability to build wealth.

In short it leads to: no jobs, unaffordable housing, pick one.

The reversal of this trend would be a win/win for everyone.

I've also seen the negative aspects of "new urbanism." To those who don't see it yet, I'll leave this here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent)

In short: urbanism tends to enrich present day property owners and can worsen wealth distribution. If people can't own property they are at the mercy of the law of rent and are shut out of the primary mechanism for middle class wealth accumulation.

As far as the environment goes, 20 years ago we did not have affordable high performing good range EVs on the market. Now we do. The suburbs could be fully electrified, and suburban roofs are good enough to supply a minimum of 50% of the power required (and often more) for a typical suburban home.

Land use is IMHO only a concern in very dense countries and regions. The USA could experience a quadrupling of the size of its suburbs and still only a small percentage of land would be used for this. The vast majority of land (and water etc.) use is farming, and urban/suburban settlement patterns have no effect at all on how much farm land is needed. If anything urbanism may slightly increase farm land requirements as it encourages people to eat at restaurants rather than cook food at home. The restaurant system is incredibly wasteful of food, while eating at home tends to encourage less food waste.

</comment><comment><USER15> Living density doesn't really matter. The virus spreads in indoor common areas like supermarkets, bars, restaurants, etc. These are just as dense in rural areas, maybe more due to lack of delivery.

<comment><USER16> folks are erroneously using _density_ as a proxy for the primary transmission vector, which is prolonged, varied, and direct exposure to others' respiratory exhaust (understandable, but still erroneous). that happens primarily face-to- face, in close proximity, for many continuous minutes, not walking around a grocery store or sitting in a restaurant.

bars/clubs are different because they're primarily spaces for guard-lowering behaviors (drinking, dancing, etc.), which also lowers risk mitigation practices against infection.

this misperception of risk is what leads us to poorly placed faith in lockdowns, rather than the more sensible "distance, and when you can't mask" rule that has (nearly) all the benefits and (nearly) none of the massive downsides.

<comment><USER17> [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs- po...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population- density?xScale=linear&yScale=linear) You are right. Population density appears to not really matter. Mask wearing and distancing appear to matter much much more.

<comment><USER16> thanks for the data support. it's really about getting people to take sensible precautions (by making them easy and reasonable), not going overboard and inducing a backlash due to disregarding relevant issues and consequences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is this propaganda to help relax the home owning population?

If the jobless rate and GDP continue to suffer I can't see this being anything but bad for rural and suburban real estate.

<comment><USER19> We've had riots, inaction by mayors, and ridiculous decisions by leaders in large metro areas for the past month. Nobody in their right mind is staying in cities, especially after the insane selective application of laws and ordinances the last 5-6 weeks.

Who would buy a nice place in, for example, St. Louis right now?!

<comment><USER20> >We've had riots

>Who would buy a nice place in, oh, for example St. Louis, right now?!

People who want to live there regardless and see an opportunity to spend less money doing so. They're the same people who buy real-estate on the cheap after it's value has been depressed by a "fresh in people's minds" disaster in any other location.

Live in a city. Deal with city problems. If you want to live in Nebraska don't be surprised if a tornado flattens your property. If you want to live in Florida don't be surprised if it's underwater. Having rioters burn your home to the ground is simply the mode of destruction you accept some risk of by living in a city.

Personally I'd rather deal with nature trying to destroy my stuff rather than people trying to destroy my stuff but I can understand why people want to live in the city.

<comment><USER21> We shouldn't legitimize the mindset the parent is pushing, that riots have swept the nation.

Protests swept the nation. Many cities had increased vandalism. A small number had anything approaching riots.

I am renting a house very near the city center. Were it not for the home prices, I would love to own here... though another poster made a good point. All the good reasons to live in the city (night life, people watching, proximity to friends and services and hobbies) are closed down. At least I can walk to the grocery store.

<comment><USER22> > Many cities had increased vandalism

You say that like it's a past event. Portland is still seeing riot activity. They have done a fair amount of damage downtown. I feel sad for the peaceful BLM protestors because much of the general public will not draw a distinction, so this kind of behavior will blunt their message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Anecdotally this is happening. Lumber at Home Depot is scarce. I know people leaving Bay Area, Philly, and Richmond. In the case of Richmond, the protests contributed. I get the sense that many of the families leaving were planning to leave eventually in the next few years anyway. In America, it is very common for couples to start in cities, and then move out before child 1 goes to school. This situation is accelerating that process.

<comment><USER24> " Lumber at Home Depot is scarce."

I suspect that's more ... home projects with folks stuck at home / out of work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 30% of Americans missed their housing payments in June. [1]

Why the hell would you build a new house, when an unprecedented, enormous number of homes are in danger of foreclosure?

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/30percent-of-americans- misse...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/30percent-of-americans-missed-their- housing-payments-in-june.html)

<comment><USER26> Your question/comment is very confusing.

The people buying houses are not the same as the ones who missed their payments.

The people building houses are not connected with those who are missing payments.

<comment><USER27> Your response is also very confusing.

Foreclosed homes usually go on the market for a steep discount. Additionally widespread foreclosures would depress house pricing in general. The market will gradually price in reduced rent-seeking ability.

For a buyer, it may be a good option to wait a relatively short period for prices to depress rather than build a new home at this time.

Edit: Mentioned reduced landlord rent-seeking ability in response to @sombremesa's question if rental properties would affect pricing.

<comment><USER26> > Foreclosed homes usually go on the market for a steep discount.

This may be market dependent. When I was buying a house, foreclosed homes were usually not any cheaper.

> For a buyer, it may be a good option to wait a relatively short period for > prices to depress rather than build a new home at this time.

I think the general gist is that suburban houses are in demand _now_ , and prices are not dropping. Some may hope that they will drop in the future for reasons you are pointing out, but it's a gamble that depends on the timeline of building a house and how long coronavirus is around vs how long it will take for prices to come down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Jokes on us.. My rural area has had a covid spike b/c people refuse to wear masks or social distance.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is wrong in two major aspects: 1) The current real estate surge isn't related to coronavirus itself, it's related to pent up demand caused by coronavirus lockdowns. 2) People aren't moving to suburbs because they're afraid of corona within major cities, it's because millennials are over their inner city lifestyles while at the same time don't feel safe walking down the street. Survival instincts are kicking in.

</comment><comment><USER30> I live in a rural area on 3 acres, 1 hour north of SF. Last year, a couple, mid 30s, from the city, bought a house on our street to live out the "Country Dream". Their new country house was back on the market within 12 months. Many people who have never lived in a rural setting don't realize the work load that comes along with country living. Wells, septic systems, tree work and mowing, maintaining defensible space for wildfires, even the work prepping a garden... it takes a lot more time and sweat than many realize.

</comment><comment><USER31> Anectdote: Since covid started, we refinanced after the federal government started juicing the mortgage market with more funds, and enjoyed a stock windfall.

On top of that, the multi—unit projects got paused, so subcontractors that wouldn't talk to us in February are now giving us competitive bids.

Some of the stock is going into improvements that we would have done as remodels a decade from now.

Assuming we're typical, the increase in starts on new construction is probably just a blip as the construction industry catches up with pent up demand.

I'm hoping (for the people building our house, and for out long term sanity) that it's the beginning of a trend where commutes become less frequent, which increase the feasible maximum radius of cities increases. I could see it going either way.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you are a white collar professional, especially one with kids, your costs have likely fallen dramatically while your income has probably remained the same.

The personal finance subreddit for Canada is full of anecdotes from middle class professionals who have saved a ton of money during the pandemic on everything from daycare to lunch to housekeeping and are redeploying that money to housing.

</comment><comment><USER32> I called this a few months ago. I just today moved into a new house on five acres in the country, and my old house in the suburbs is now worth about 50k more than in January (going by comps).

The people with jobs that let them afford houses weren't laid off, they're working remotely. The people who were laid off were food service / retail who didn't buy houses anyway.

</comment><comment><USER33> Another factor is the current investment environment. Bonds and CDs have very low yields, equities are too risky to fully depend on in many cases, there's fear of inflation. People may instead be parking money in assets such as real estate. Then when the economy (hopefully) recovers in 2-3 years they'll have new cash flow.

</comment><comment><USER34> I own a house in a tech hub. Because of the smaller inventory in the market it's propping up home prices in my neighborhood which otherwise should be decreasing slightly (trying not to doxx myself here)

My job will be wfh for the rest of the year.

I am considering selling my house to rent a smaller apartment further out of the city center, though still within commuting distance (albeit long commute).

Rent prices are falling, apparently, so my idea would be to rent and save money for a year or two before buying a house again once life comes back to normal.

Am I way off base with this thinking?

Closing costs on selling then buying again later may outweigh benefits of renting although I'm sceptical of that.

I estimate I can lower my housing payment buy $1200mo by renting instead of my mortgage.

<comment><USER31> How much can you save by refinancing? It sounds like you don't want this house for much longer. 5/1 ARMs are 2.7%, and the rate is fixed for 5 years. Think of it as renting for 5 years, and it seems less scary.

Of course if the house goes way down in value, and interest rates go up, you end up losing a bunch of equity. However, the house you buy next will probably be discounted too, so the real risk is that you'll get stuck with a higher rate on the next loan.

Your rental plan is also risky: if prices skyrocket while you rent, you lose out on a lot of appreciated equity, and you still have the interest rate risk when you buy again.

Edit: With the rental plan, you can throw all the equity into a roboadvisor or something. Those have 5-7% real returns in "normal" years, but this isn't a normal year. (Though your equity in the house is effectively leveraged because of your mortgage. If you own 50% of the house, it only has to appreciate 2.5-3.5% (after inflation) to beat the stocks.

<comment><USER34> I need to run the numbers on refi. I'm on 3.25% fixed rate now and owe ~500k still, definitely not close to 50% paid off either.

Arm loans scare me only because of seeing what happened during the last housing collapse.

Looks like I have a lot of research to do on this but you all have given me some good starting poits to think about thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've been trying to get a mortgage to buy some land near Redding, CA. No one wants to lend on land without buildings.

FWIW, here's the details:

It's forty-four acres, eight miles from Redding, and there was a house there but it burned down in the Carr Fire two years ago. There's a well, septic system, electric hookup, and concrete pad to build on already. You just have to design your dream home and build it. Before the fire burned the house down the property was appraised at $350K and now it's available for $80K.

It seems like a no-brainer to me but I'll be damned if I can find anybody who's interested. Even the sketchy lenders aren't interested.

<comment><USER36> you need a bridge loan and then a property development loan, not a mortgage.

What you want to engage in is property development and these are substantially higher in interest rates (and typically refinanced once everything is built).

Traditional mortgages are secured by the asset value and the repayments are secured by the potential cashflow from the property. If there's no building then it's just the land value.

<comment><USER35> Cheers. I didn't know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Suburbs are hot now but my prediction is that it's not going to have an effect on house prices in the suburbs long term. No doubt that covid and remote work make the suburbs more attractive for many. But remote work also means people can spread out more and fewer people moving in to areas with opportunities from other cities/states, which means demand in many hot places will slow down.

My point is, if you look at any major and expensive area, most of the expensive suburb residents are people who moved to the area because of work. Without those people moving in, prices wouldn't have been expensive to beging with.

</comment><comment><USER38> I suppose it is all relative and that it is good starts did not tank more. I do wonder though how many of these starts are builder spec vs pre-existing contracts with large deposits?

Longer term chart of housing starts show just how depressed that market has been when compared to the 70s-early 2000s.

[https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/07/housing-starts- in...](https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/07/housing-starts-increased- to-1186.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm building a house with toll brothers in the mountain west right now. As others note - this manifests in individual lots having construction started on them. I can absolutely tell you that they are seeing a influx of engineers from California right now. ThT combined with very limited inventory is resulting in significant price increases (and a removal of incentives) here.

</comment><comment><USER40> Between remote work becoming much more of A Thing and mortgage interest rates being six feet under, this is not surprising at all.

I share everyone else's concerns about what happens if the economy keeps going on it's downward trend, and foreclosures start to happen again. I'm really hesitant to speculate on that.

</comment><comment><USER41> It seems there's almost no barrier to adding the infrastructure required for everyone to live in individual castles, carting themselves around in ever- growing wheelchairs to gigantic commerce centers designed for said wheelchairs (but not humans). Will the cost of this ever come into consideration? Will anything in America be human-sized in 80 years? Perhaps my view is clouded by the Texas sprawl I see every day.

The pickup truck perfectly represents the excesses of this development pattern: It consumes large amounts of fuel and takes up lots of space. With high hoods (and often added bull bar/brush guard) it's dangerous to those outside of it while protecting the single person inside at all costs. It can hold four/five people while also carrying/towing a large amount of purchased goods, and though it isn't often used for such purposes, it represents a "hard work" ethos, especially that of the hourly worker, which fuels the consumerism that enables such a vehicles existence.

<comment><USER42> So.... you're saying there's a bunch of stuff people are doing that you don't like?

<comment><USER41> My like or dislike isn't the issue. Let's just correctly price the externalities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> America is about four weeks away from a massive wave of foreclosures, bigger than 2008.

</comment><comment><USER44> Does this mean that there are a boatload of jobs that are suddenly okay with working remotely out of state? From my SV engineering circle, none of their companies have updated their policies to allow moving out of state.

<comment><USER45> I talked recently with an executive at a very large SV company. It was mentioned that people can work remote and live in other areas but the pay is adjusted based on the area they are moving to. I do not know how common this is but I assume it isn't unheard of. (this was pre-pandemic policy BTW)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Demand for bunkers also up. I wonder how peppers are reacting to the pandemic, how many of them are retreating into their safe houses.

</comment><comment><USER47> If people are really moving out if the cities why are we not seeing a reduction is home prices?

<comment><USER48> Home prices are inelastic even in normal times. There are large transactions costs, lots of paperwork and intermediaries, and for most people it is their main "investment" so they are loath to sell it at a discount. Also, the Covid crisis has only been going on for about 6 months and there has been a number of large government interventions to avoid a financial crash. Most mortgage holders can get a deferral on payments simply by asking and if you are unemployed the increased UI benefits have made a big difference in keeping people afloat. I think prices may eventually come down, but this crisis is only in its beginning stage. I think it is simply too early to really tell.

However - even if everything goes awry and there are lots of defaults and a large migration out of cities, we could still end up with steady or rising real estate prices. Why? Because lower interest rates make it easier to service debt and rates are only going down.

I got my mortgage a few years back at what I thought was a killer rate - 4.25%, now I am seeing rates as low as 2.85%. A simple example: The monthly cost of a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 4.25% is $492. The monthly cost of a $125,000 30 year at 2.85% is $517

Because of the change in interest rates I now have 25% more purchasing power at roughly the same monthly price. And that monthly mortgage amount is what really drives payment decisions. The sales price isn't so important - it's can I service the monthly payments, and with lower interest rates you can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Who are all these people that can just uproot themselves and make a "flight to the suburbs" at seemingly the drop of a hat? And then what, in 6 months time they're going to move back?

Moving for me has always been a _big deal_. Am I thinking about it the wrong way? Don't these people have leases or something? Or kids that they'll have to find a new school for?

<comment><USER50> I know off the top of my head I think 5 people that decided to buy houses during lockdown. As I heard somewhere early in this, "Crises accelerate life." Largely these are people who were planning to buy / upgrade in the near term anyway.

Suddenly they had time on their hands and it seemed like the right time. Not to mention that interest rates are dropping through the floor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Just rich old baby boomers retiring. They don't want to live in the cities with young people. so they buy land out in the country to live out there final days.</comment>


Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28672121

<comment><USER2> "... the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." The fact that non-human primates can now supposedly hold copyrights is my big take-away from this.

<comment><USER3> What totally floors me about this one is that I can barely but not really see an argument for public domain; i.e. no one took the photo. But would this be any different from using automatic triggers and the like? No, not really, if the monkey isn't a person.

But, assuming for purposes of argument, that something neither a person nor a legal entity can somehow copyright a photo, I'm willing to bet that said monkey didn't release that photo under an appropriate license for Wikimedia to use. So if the monkey does own the copyright, Wikimedia still doesn't have the right to use it.

<comment><USER4> It differs from an automatic trigger in that the photographer is still the one exercising the decision to take a photograph. In the case under consideration, the monkeys stole the camera while the photographer was distracted.

(Perhaps it's also worth noting that the monkeys weren't "taking selfies" per se; they were simply fiddling with the camera and noticed that pressing a button made a sound.)

It's really a fascinating corner case. On the one hand, I agree that the photo almost has to be considered to be in the public domain. On the other hand, the photographer did exercise effort and choice in retrieving his camera, finding the one (hilariously adorable) image in the several that the monkeys inadvertently took, and making it available as a photograph. (Not to mention cropping and rotating the raw photo to properly frame the monkey. But one could ignore that by focusing on the original image, which isn't shown in the article but is floating around the web.)

I suspect that if this exact situation had happened forty years, back when photos still had to be chemically developed, nobody would think for a second that the photographer didn't have full copyright ownership. He may not have exercised intent, but without his efforts there would be no photograph. It's only now, when the process of turning a camera's image into a viewable artifact has become relatively transparent, that it becomes less clear what the human photographer has contributed.

<comment><USER3> It _is_ an interesting corner case. We'll increasingly have the ability to setup cameras that can be algorithmically controlled, perhaps using machine learning approaches to take photos based on autonomous evaluation carried by robotic vehicles. I think most would argue that the deployer of the camera is still the photographer.

However, how is that really different if--in this case--the photographer had deliberately given a bunch of monkeys cameras that they could fool around with and take pictures of each other or whatnot? In both cases, you're essentially creating the opportunity for autonomous entities to take photos under only somewhat understood conditions. And how different is that really from this case?

Levels of abstraction and indirection in the creative process. Do you draw a line somewhere?

(Mind you, in this case, IMO there's a pretty clear presumption that the human photographer owns the copyright and Wikimedia is playing with fiddly legalisms that aren't appropriate in this context.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's clearly a niche in the market for reputation management. I know it exists, but perhaps something that can be used by the 90,000 people send requests to Google would generate a bit of income?

The photograph example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.j...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.jpg#filelinks) is odd. The photographer took the picture, and has released it to the public domain. There is clearly confusion between photographers and venues / bands about what the laws actually are, and what reasonable behaviour is. I'd be interested to know why the musician wants this very low quality photo taken down?

Here's evidence of confusion over legal status of photographs: [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/24/cant- photographers...](http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/24/cant- photographers-musicians-get-along/)

<comment><USER6> You don't have an automatic right to take pictures in private venues. If the ticket or signage states /photography is not allowed' then your copyright claim is invalid, and the material is not yours to give away. Rather a stingy policy for a venue to have, of course, but then nobody is forced to attend a concert or similar event if they don't like the conditions of attendance.

<comment><USER7> You certainly don't lose copyright protection of a photo you took because you were told not to do so. You just risk being thrown out of the venue or other legal trouble.

<comment><USER6> The musical performance is itself copyrighted, by definition. Reproducing part of it without permission is an infringement.

<comment><USER7> No part of the music being performed is reproduced in a photograph.

<comment><USER6> A music performance in front of an audience is audiovisual. You would be right if we were talking about a photograph of a radio taken while the performance was broadcast, but we're not. Indeed, when people mention they attended a concert, they say things like 'I went to see my favorite band last week,' as opposed to saying they went to listen to them.

<comment><USER6> HN shoots the messenger again, I see. I don't make the law, I just tell you about it:

[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/summary_rome.html](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/summary_rome.html)

wikimedia itself observes that shoting without a permit may put you in breach of a contract you signed when you purchased the ticket, as I alluded to above:

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Concert_photography)

...which is why publishers won't buy photographs without a signed release, such as this one:

[http://images.tbd.com/entertainment/gaga- release.pdf](http://images.tbd.com/entertainment/gaga-release.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Middle-clicking any external link on this page opens it... in the same tab. Are they actively trying to get rid of their visitors?!

<comment><USER9> Probably they are trying to track clicks and do not have logic in place to simulate middle-clicks.

Dear fellow web developers, please stop overriding essential browser functionality like scrolling, clicking on external links, right clicks and touch events. Especially on a web page with static content. Trust me, it will break.

<comment><USER10> NoScript is a good solution while browser vendors are taking their time getting their shit together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >>> The judges involved decided that citizens had the right to have links to "irrelevant" and outdated data erased from search engine results.

I wonder, are Google doing this to make the 'forgotten' content "relevant" again, because of recent news articles covering the move. Then they can start linking to it again?

<comment><USER12> Google is removing tens of thousands of links; the media will cover only a tiny fraction of those.

<comment><USER11> Good point. I just like the conspiracy angle...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice mob mentality, let's all pick up on the awkward guy who wants his brush with the law or crazy hairstyles removed from the internet so he can try to get job a after a long depression.

<comment><USER14> The "right to be forgotten" law is for the rich and powerful to conceal their past bad behaviour from the public record; it's certainly not for the benefit of the likes of you and me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streissand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streissand_effect) in action

</comment><comment><USER16> Has anyone started some work to find out the complete list of "forgotten" links? It shouldn't be hard to create a bot to parse the Wikipedia "People" categories, then run searches for each person on Google UK. If the article doesn't show up in the results, it means it's a forgotten link.

Then all these links could be listed in a website. Maybe the simple fact that each "forgotten" link is automatically listed there will prevent people from using this right to be forgotten, and make the law obsolete.

<comment><USER17> I think Google is sending sites notice for all removed links, so the list linked from the article [1] should be complete for Wikimedia. Of course, that doesn't apply to the entire rest of the web..

[1] [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_s...](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't get it. Couldn't you already stop Google from indexing your page by using robot.txt?

<comment><USER19> This is people asking Google to stop surfacing old content about them from other web sites, not their own web site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most stuff will go away eventually, when sites die or are renewed. It just takes more time than what people like.

</comment><comment><USER21> >While the links do not appear on Google.co.uk and other versions of the search engine created for specific EU countries, they do still appear on Google.com, which can be accessed in Europe.

Even a great firewall of Europe would not make this kind of censorship work.

<comment><USER22> Many people in the EU, including myself, don't bother with the localised versions of Google since the results can be annoying. Having said that it really is frustrating not to be able to easily restrict a search all the EU ccTLDs.

<comment><USER23> Except for local search (shops and restaurants for me) I never use the German version of Google, it's so much worse. Sometimes I use the German version accidentally and it feels like Google is broken somehow.

The most annoying thing is, that when you type google.com (instead of google.de for example) you still get the localized version. I don't keep Google cookies for long, so [http://www.google.com/ncr](http://www.google.com/ncr) is in my muscle memory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nice one. Perhaps they should start uploading DMCA protected content too?

O wait, corporations using their legal leverage to remove content is perfectly ok.

<comment><USER25> They do post the DMCA takedown requests that they comply with.

[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:DMCA](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:DMCA)

I wouldn't assume that the Foundation or the Wikipedia community would think that the existence of the DMCA safe harbor is a good idea or that it's OK that people invoke it against Wikipedia. Certainly the Foundation is very actively involved in pushing back against takedowns; notice that that page "does not include the numerous requests that were found to be invalid or otherwise inappropriate where no content was removed" \-- presumably through the hard work of Foundation lawyers resisting those takedowns.

<comment><USER14> Note also that whereas Google gets _millions_ of DMCA takedowns, Wikimedia gets _hundreds_. That's because the editors - the volunteers who do all the actual work - are zealous (sometimes ridiculously so) about copyright.

Wikimedia is the only web 2.0 site that gives a hoot about copyright.</comment></comment></comment>


ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2019-adds-brighter-LCDs-better-speakers-a-Carbon-Fiber-coating.391286.0.html <comment> King-Aaron I just want a ThinkPad that has some actual graphics acceleration. I was really wanting to buy one for my recent work machine, but without a decent high powered graphics card it limits the usefulness for my workflow.

<comment><USER2> Is a 1050ti a decent high powered graphics card? [https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-x/Thi...](https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-x/ThinkPad-X1-Extreme/p/22TP2TXX1E1)

<comment> King-Aaron Unfortunately not quite enough for the money I ended up settling with. I'm hoping in the next couple of months we see some 6/8GB card options out of the box

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yay for the new speakers but too bad they reduced battery capacity though, especially combined with the new 4k screen option this is quite concerning.

Also I like the carbon fiber but it just sort of looks fake on these images, what it looks like in reality remains to be seen (literally). Dell did it right with their XPS cf palmrest.

</comment><comment><USER4> Guess I still have to wait for a 13/14" ultrabook with 32GB of ram.

<comment><USER5> Categorically opposed to 15"? X1 extreme ships with 32GB, and apparently it has room for another module. Quite sleek too.</comment></comment>


Ecuador wanted to make Julian Assange a diplomat and send him to Moscow - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/ecuador-wanted-to-make-julian-assange-a-diplomat-and-send-him-to-moscow/ <comment><USER2> Worked out okay for Edward Snowden. Would the US actually respect the human rights of either? Doesn't seem likely.</comment>


Command and Conquer 4K remaster coming - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/14/18095301/command-conquer-remastered-red-alert-ea-petroglyph <comment><USER2> Good move. Those teenagers or early twenties are now middle aged men with cash to spare for some nostalgia.

</comment><comment><USER3> I consider the late 90s and early 2000s the golden age of RTS games. Glad to see old titles like these making a come back. Hopefully, someone will do that for Total Annihilation as well. (No, supcom and planetary annihilation don't count)

</comment><comment><USER4> Highly recommend Homeworld Remastered too! Ah, the early 2000s were the days... No girl and nothin but time :)

</comment><comment><USER5> I am pretty happy to be alive in the age of remastered WC3, SC1 and RA1.

<comment><USER6> And AOE2!

Yea, it's great to be able to play these great RTS classics again on modern systems!</comment></comment>


Bridging the Culture Gap Between Content and Coding - <AUTHOR> http://www.jennifer8lee.com/2012/04/16/bridging-the-culture-gap-between-content-and-coding/

<comment><USER2> The biggest culture gap between content and coding is that we have repeatable processes to extract a million dollars (or more) out of a programmer paid $100,000, and can scale that to an arbitrarily high number of programmers, but we do not have repeatable processes to extract a million dollars out of a... "creative" paid $100,000 or $10,000, and to the extent that any business has figured out how to scale that, they have either a) decided that the way forward is to use prometeur talent paid peanuts (+) or b) have large Our Business Model Is Dying signs stapled to their forehead. Techies, who like to think we have the intelligence God gave the average squirrel, do not like imitating dying business models. We prefer killing dying business models instead. This is why Demand Media of X sounds like a semi-attractive proposition as long as X is not "Programming." +

\+ I write. I don't have an emotional attachment to the profession of writing. From my perhaps biased perspective, there exists a wide spectrum of writing, and the overwhelming majority of it is not the New York Times editorial page.

There's a market for 5 star chefs in writing just like there is in food, but pink slime and Tyson chicken keeps people from going hungry every single day, and the numbers suggest that pink slime is a sustainable, growing business and 5 star chefs are a perpetually money-losing luxury good hanging on to life via subsidies from rich people who enjoy cocktail parties in New York and the social superiority this gives over people who eat Tyson chicken. If we agree that large portions of the creative industries are producing writing/videos/etc where enduring works of literary genius are neither necessary nor particularly desirable (from "How to roast a chicken" to "3 Adlai E. Stevenson High School Students Got Perfect Scores on the SAT" to "7 year old killed in gang crossfire; Family mourns" to "Her: librarian. Him: mindflayer. Plot: chance brings them together, they hate each other, they go on to have mindblowing sex, stay tuned for more of same in books 2 through 8"), then the really interesting questions are not about quality so much as they are about process / business model / etc. We have good, interesting answers to many of those... and our answers frequently do not include high- paid, high-status creative folks.

P.S. If there is any pink slime in the audience, I apologize for putting you in the same sentence as the New York Times editorial page, it is just adopting a common conceit to make a point.

<comment><USER2> I feel the need to refine this:

It occurs to me that today is an _impressively_ terrible time to run a content company but a great time to run a content business. If you are, genuinely, as talented a producer as those rarefied folks who actually did fairly well under the old model _and_ you have business savvy, there exist a variety of new models who have economics which are radically, radically better than any option presented to you under the old status quo.

e.g. If you possess skills and audience equivalent to a midlist genre fiction author, you'd be pretty much insane to take a standard publishing contract right now. jakonrath.blogspot.com has written literally books about how the math shakes out.

e.g. #2: If you're really really talented at explaining very hard things to some identifiable audience of people who have money to spend, you _could_ get a _whole five thousand dollars_ by spending six weeks writing that up for publication as a dead-tree book. If you end up on the NYT best seller's list, you may even receive royalty checks which approach the imposing salary of a municipal water department HR clerk. However, if that field is commercially viable, there exist numerous other paths whose punch-line is "less work, more savvy, _radically_ more money." (Publish and promote an e-book is one of them. That is easy to explain but probably far from the most lucrative option.)

The combination we haven't seen much of yet is "Take the new model, then scale it like the old model." (Outside e.g. platform companies like Amazon / Apple / etc.)

<comment><USER3> I think you could add to your examples curation.

As shown by the gentleman that publishes HackerNews Monthly, there's definitely a market for the collection/curation of content, and that business probably scales pretty well.

There have to be all kinds of audiences out there that don't have time for a deep dive into the 'net to find the content they are regularly interested in, setup RSS feeds, etc. Bringing quality content to them that either entertains, educates, or enlightens (not to mention enriches) would seem to be a good business with a very good future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is a truly horrible font choice... :(</comment>


SaltStack's docs set the standard for software documentation - <AUTHOR> http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/

<comment><USER2> No, no they don't.

Poor search (custom Google searches are substandard generally), hidden full index, table of contents that doesn't match the index page, no synposes on pages that need them (eg CLI reference), no indication of what came before or next for individual sections, hidden index link, etc.

However, that's all very critical. On the plus side, comprehensive documentation is _far_ better than no documentation at all, or poor / lacking documentation. And when you do want to read long sections of text, it looks quite well written.

<comment><USER3> We have a Salt Docs Sprint coming up next week. Details here: [http://www.saltstack.com/saltstack-events/salt-docs- sprint](http://www.saltstack.com/saltstack-events/salt-docs-sprint) Please add this feedback as an issue on our GitHub tagged with ticket #12446, and please join the sprint and contribute if you can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The getting started doesn't help to really start anything.

I had to use third party docs to start with salt and ansible. I don't like puppet and chef docs either. Maybe all of them expect some user knowledge (I'm a developer learning about configuration management).

</comment><comment><USER5> As a frequent user of salt's docs I am quite impressed, but still more impressed by postgres :P --> [http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/index.html](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Comprehensive? Yes

Easy to find what you are looking for? Not really

</comment><comment><USER7> No, not especially. Poor search, pages in apparently random order. Quantity is good though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why?</comment>


iPad mini - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/overview/ <comment><USER3> There is no obvious reason this product isn't going to sell in huge quantities.

Less conceptually fragile, less expensive, more portable, same software stack, same media stack, same OS, same UX, same premium experience, same monstrous manufacturing and distribution reach, same monstrous advertising and product awareness engine.

Every single one of the children you see in restaurants working an iPad so mommy and daddy can eat in peace will have one of these by January.

Schools will buy in by the hundreds of thousands, regardless of actual utility or how successful digital textbooks eventually become.

This is the new travel iPad. This is the status gift for the developing world. This is the throwaway iPad if you're rich or the first one you look at if you're less so.

It's priced to make Apple the margins they want while still inviting comparisons with less expensive and similarly sized tablets. It's going to suck the oxygen out of the $300-$500 price range for anything with a screen.

And it's cheap enough to substantially distinguish itself from the main iPad line, which is selling millions a week. That's all it had to do, pricing-wise.

I don't want or need this, and I don't think it was particularly necessary for the health of the iPad line, but they dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts when designing this product.

<comment><USER4> I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd never use this product but I'm sure it will do great.

I've been really critical of Apple lately, but I can't find any reason to get upset over this announcement. I find it funny how people are railing against this announcement just because its not useful to them. There are a million different needs and uses out there for different people.

<comment><USER5> You triggered something: I have been wondering why Apple does not have iPads support multiple user accounts that are easy to switch between? With iCloud, it would seem reasonable for a family to have a min, a standard iPad, and perhaps a future "iPad whopper" (with perhaps a 14 inch screen). They could be left laying around the house and anyone could just pick up the appropriate device as-needed.

I can answer my own question: Apple doesn't want people to share these devices: fewer sales.

<comment><USER6> I find not having user accounts drastically reduces how much the iPad gets used in my house. In my case, I'm sure this affects sales in the app store.

<comment><USER7> Maybe this is cynical of me, but I think the preferred solution (from Apple's perspective) is to buy more iPads.

<comment><USER8> It isn't cynical in the slightest. That is simply the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How underwhelming.

 _At 7.9 inches, it's perfectly sized to deliver an experience every bit as big as iPad_

What does that even mean? Either it's perfectly sized, and the iPad is the wrong size. Or it's not. There can surely only be one perfect size to deliver an iPad experience??? Either it's 10" or it's 7.9".

I think Apple's marketing has always been the same - it's just that for a while they were ahead of the curve and so their hyperbole was justified. The iPhone was amazing. The Macbook Air is still amazing. But there is absolutely FUCK ALL amazing about a smaller fucking iPad.

<comment><USER10> I say this with absolutely no judgement regarding the value of the iPad Mini, but I'm struck by the similarity between this criticism and the criticism leveled against the original iPad ("it's just a giant iPod Touch!").

<comment><USER11> This is what apple haters say about every Apple product. They said the iPhone would be a total flop and never sell the 10 million units Steve Jobs said they hoped to sell-- because it didn't have a hardware keyboard.

They said it about the iPod too- claiming that having less capacity than the creative nomad and no built in radio made it "lame" (CmdrTaco famously said this.)

They said it about the iMac as well, calling it a toy computer that looked like candy. Funny how in 2 years all the other manufacturers were making their computers colorful, and the bondi-blue design aesthetic was adopted by a wide variety of products around the world.

Now I'm sure somewhere there are people who were not even 10 years old when the iMac was being put down are saying the iPad mini is lame. For the same reasons.

Then when the product strikes a nerve with the public, and sells 100 million units, they decide that the people buying it must be stupid and persuaded by slick marketing, because obviously its "lame" or "doesn't have the specs" of the competition (though they never detail how it lacks specs and usually they're completely wrong and ignoring the terrible usability of the competition.)

It's the standard issue mythology of the apple hater:

Apple products are inferior (even when they aren't.) Apple products are more expensive (even though they aren't.) Apple buyers are stupid and easily persuaded by slick marketing (even though it should be obvious that people buy Apple products because they work better for them.)

Consequently, EVERY Apple product introduction is "underwhelming".

<comment><USER12> Any discussion involving the terms "apple hater" or "apple fanboy" immediately disappears into a hole of stupidity.

That said, Apple are inviting some of these comparisons. "More expensive", for example. The iPad Mini _is_ more expensive than a Nexus 7, by a significant margin. Apple invited the comparison by _comparing the two devices themselves on stage_.

<comment><USER3> Google should be delighted. I've yet to find a "normal" who is aware that anyone else sells "iPads". And Amazon doesn't count, they sell "Kindles".

No amount of competitive marketing seems to have brought the two product families into competition beyond "well I heard the iPad has books too but my friend loves her Kindle".

<comment><USER12> I'm yet to find a "normal" that watches Apple Keynotes, though.

<comment><USER13> No but the iPad Mini was above-the-fold breaking news on the BBC news website before the keynote was even over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of the best parts about my Nexus 7 is that it fits perfectly in my back pocket (and even front-jeans pockets but that's much less comfortable). Having a tablet on my person (i.e. not having to reach inside a backpack to get it out) has been a great convenience.

The increase in width from the 7.9" screen is surely going to mean that this won't which is a pity.

<comment><USER15> It's 5.3" vs the N7's 4.7". My N7 with case fits in my pocket, so a bare iPad Mini should, but once you add a case, it may be a little too big.

(Totally agreed on the fits-in-pocket thing as a key value point, though!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> With their announcement speech so full of contradictions, it seems like they're struggling to differentiate the Mini from the cheaper Nexus 7. The major appeal is its small size, but in comparison to the Nexus 7 they emphasize how much larger it is (albeit lower total resolution). Seems to be a clear case of presenting weaknesses as strengths, which will, unfortunately, probably succeed with many existing Apple customers. The two compelling advantages over the Nexus 7, the presence of a second camera and the availability of cellular capability, were barely mentioned.

<comment><USER17> I thought this was weird, too. The reason I bought a Nexus 7 was because of the 7in screen. Saying "It's a smaller iPad, but bigger!" just wasn't doing it for me. Maybe it was an attempt to sell people on the higher price tag.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I suspect that lots of women will be buying these with the 4G wireless. That form factor could fit into a lot of purse and pocketbooks quite comfortably, but the screen is still much more usable than a phone. Having that around while shopping will be awesome for users.

I also suspect that lots of doctors will buy these. I suspect this will fit very nicely into a lab coat, and the form factor will be a much better fit for doctors with easier one handed operation.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why does it cost more than the Kindle Fire HD but has way worse specs? Apple have shot themselves in the foot with this launch. I'm so disappointed in the iPad Mini.

<comment><USER20> Apple competes on user experience. Not price, and certainly not specs.

<comment><USER19> The poor specs lead to a poor UX, so I fail to see the difference.

<comment><USER21> Are you serious? A well designed ecosystem is much more important than trying to increase the number of gigahertz/megaflops every release. Just because a corvette is more powerful and way cheaper than a Ferrari/Porsche it does not mean that you will have a better experience than buying one of the latter.

<comment><USER22> The iPad 1 has serious usability issues due to the limited amount of RAM. After experiencing this, I would be nervous about the lifespan of an iOS device with only 512MB. On some level, specs really do matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave ;)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAjfUT8wZI>

<comment><USER24> "you can't just scale down the interface"

oops

<comment><USER25> They didn't. It's exactly the same resolution as the original iPad and iPad 2

<comment><USER24> same resolution, scaled down by 20%.

so if you designed a button to be as small as a finger for the ipad, it's now too small.

<comment><USER26> The tap targets on a 10" iPad are quite big, there was some room to shrink the screen without it hurting usability. Besides, the 7.9" screen size wasn't randomly picked:

The tap targets on an iPad mini are exactly the same size as they are on an iPhone or iPod touch (which also confirms that Apple is using the same equipment to produce the iPad mini screen panels as they used for the iPhone 3GS — they're just cutting the panels in a different size).

 _"I think there's a method to Apple's madness in recommending 44-point-or- larger tap targets for all iOS apps, both on the iPhone and iPad, despite the fact that on the iPad-as-we-know-it, each point is physically larger than a point on the iPhone or iPod Touch. (1 point maps directly to 1 pixel on iPad 1/2 and older iPhones; 1 point maps to a 4-pixel square on the iPad 3 and iPhone 4/4S.) A 44-point tap target on the rumored iPad Mini would be exactly the same physical size as a 44-point tap target on the iPhone."_

<http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/this_ipad_mini_thing>

<comment><USER27> We'll see how many apps actually work well though, and which ones have to be tweaked. Not every developer follows the standards.

It's not like Apple even does either. The recent iOS 6 apps store on iPhone is a good example of something where they made the tap targets too small to expand app updates and it was very frustrating. They finally fixed that just recently so that the target was much larger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _> There's less of it, but no less to it._

I must say, I've consistently been impressed with Apple's copy writing.

<comment><USER29> I might be too Danish to get it but I for one can't _stand_ the full-of- ourselves copy and acting in those videos. I buy many of their products so you might argue that they work anyway but it feels to me like I buy them in spite of the marketing.

<comment><USER30> Exactly. I cringed so much during that live event because of all the 'amazing', 'great', 'innovative', 'beautiful' word dropping, I paused it a couple of times just to yell at the screen (but maybe that's just me)

<comment><USER31> Tim Cook's opening remarks were really over the top. You could practically see an "Applause" light blinking every time he dropped a superlative. Phil Schiller, on the other hand, seemed more genuine.

<comment><USER32> I so want Phil Schiller to take over all Keynotes. He is very clearly the best presenter Apple currently has. I don't think an Apple CEO has to be a good presenter. Just because Steve Jobs could fill that role doesn't mean Tim Cook has to force himself to do it, too.

I honestly was relieved whenever Phil Schiller came onto stage today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> For those of you who are wondering, this is how a market evolves. When Apple built the iPad they took their best guess at what the 'right' size for the device was. Designers debate this stuff all the time, and I'm sure they looked at the iPod/iPhone screens vs MacBook screens etc. The 10" form factor was very successful for them.

Other folks have smaller form factor devices, the Dell 'Streak' [1] being an early example of an Android based device that started out at 5" and 'grew' to 7". 5" was not very successful and mocked as being an unwieldy phone, the larger size was better.

Laptops got 'huge' the 17" one being the pinnacle, and then 'small' again with the most popular models being 13 - 16"

Other tablets came out in 6, 7, 9, 10, 11" sizes at various levels of acceptance or not.

The Kindle was the first e-reader with a solid market foot print, it was 'small'. E-readers of 7" are common.

So dialing all of that together you end up with a bunch of different designers trying different ideas and some of them are successful and some aren't. The same designers look at the successful products and try to extract what aspects of the design were critical, which weren't? How did people use them, how did people think of them, what did people want that they didn't get.

So this market is evolving.

So the folks at Apple see these things and try to capture as much of the market as they can. They saw folks buying a bunch of Kindle fires and Nexus 7's and hey, they could do that.

I'm completely conflicted because I like the idea of an A6x iPad but I really like to 30 pin connector on my 3rd Gen iPad.

[1] <http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/mobile-streak-7/pd>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Streak>

</comment><comment><USER34> The app situation they highlighted vs Nexus 7 was pretty damning for Google although I have a feeling Apple cherry picked apps that make the N7 look especially bad.

On the plus side for the N7, they screwed up on price though - for the ecosystem and build quality advantage may be a $50 premium would have been attractive esp for lesser screen resolution and older CPU/GPU. The N7 also feels like it should be more single hand friendly than the iPad mini.

<comment><USER15> They did very much cherry-pick apps that run poorly on the N7. The equivalent would be demoing the N7 against an iPad running iOS apps that only have an upscaled iPhone variant.

<comment><USER35> Obviously there are cases in which the opposite is true and the interface on Android is better, but not many.

In my experience, Android apps on tablets are horrible. Apple has the upper hand here in controlling the hardware, and releasing the iPad mini with the same resolution as the iPad 2 was a really smart move. Instant compatibility with all existing apps.

<comment><USER36> Hardware control has basically nothing to do with it. Far fewer people have been motivated to create two (phone/tablet) versions of Android apps than iOS apps. Its almost certainly a volume issue.

<comment><USER35> Why aren't developers motivated to do that? Hardware control.

Look at the top-selling Android tablets. Every single one has a different screen resolution/pixel density; Nexus 7 has 1280x800 (216 ppi), Kindle Fire HD has 1024x600 (169 ppi), Nook HD has 1440x900 (243 ppi), Galaxy Tab 7.7 has 1280x800 (197 ppi), etc.

It's an absolute nightmare for developers, and this is just tablets. The Android smartphone market is even more fragmented, and there is just as much variation in display specifications.

Hardware control has everything to do with it.

<comment><USER36> If that was the case, the smartphone apps wouldn't have come about either. But they did, as evidenced by the made-for-smartphone apps that look silly on tablets, which is what this whole conversation is about.

The fragmentation in smartphones is incomparably worse than the tablet market. But Android has nice ways of dealing with it in display-independent ways, and they work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't really understand the point. Don't Apple now have 4 devices which do the same thing?

iPod + iPhone.. as far as I can tell are identical apart from the iPod cannot make calls.

iPad is a giant version of the iPod... which I really like to use to browse the web on the sofa.

We now have the iPad Mini which is that awkward size which is too big put in your pocket and yet you don't want to put it in your backpack as you could put your netbook / iPad / laptop in your bag.

I am sure they will sell plenty. I just don't really get it. Its like innovation has stalled at Apple. How many sizes can we make the iPhone?

Beyond this the iMac is incredibly disappointing. Its thin! Oh well. No SDD. No Retina Display. Probably has a little spec boost over last model. Its disappointing. Glad I didn't wait for it.

<comment><USER38> > iPod + iPhone.. as far as I can tell are identical apart from the iPod > cannot make calls.

Neither does the iPod have a data modem. It's not an always-connected communicator like the iPhone. There's a big difference in utility between always-online and mostly-online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have the same reaction the other companies are taking towards apple products nowadays: Meh.

<comment><USER40> Thank you for the timely announcement. I'll put you down for "meh."

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> It looks good. The 7.9" screen size may hit the sweet spot for smaller form factor tablets, my rooted Nook Tablet feels just a wee bit small at 7". I'm not an Apple fan but I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't sell these things by the truck load.

<comment><USER42> I'm really disappointed by the screen's resolution though. I don't even think I'm the only one. Cuz the (current) iPad has a 264 dpi screen, whereas the Mini has a 162 dpi screen.

<comment><USER41> It is odd with the iPad maxi and the iPhone both having retina displays that Apple didn't go with that out of the box for the mini. But maybe hamstringing the resolution is one of the ways Apple hopes they can nudge buyers over to the full size.

<comment><USER43> Can we agree to not say "iPad maxi" again? Thanks.

<comment><USER41> I'm not aware of anything you need my permission or inclusion as a precondition to agreeing to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The resolution, they are putting retina displays in macbook pros but launch a tablet with non-retina display. Why?

<comment><USER45> Meh, 164 PPI isn't bad, and this resolution allows them to run legacy iPad applications unscaled.

<comment><USER46> isn't bad?

The original android g1 had greater PPI (180) than this thing.

<comment><USER35> Smartphone versus tablet is not really a fair comparison.

The pixel density for the new iPad mini sits between the iPad 2 and iPad 3 with Retina display. As far as I'm aware, no one was complaining about the iPad 2 display.

In any case, I suspect the choice of resolution was driven more by compatibility concerns (i.e. it can run iPad 2 apps unscaled), and this paves the way for a 'Retina display' iPad mini at some point in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Apple stock is down on the news. Although I'm personally underwhelmed by this announcement, I'll bet analysts are more worried about the lower priced iPad cutting into margins than they are Apple's ability to ship them.

<comment><USER48> I doubt it. This is typical for Apple's stock. There is always a run up before an announcement, and a drop immediately after.

It's the old adage: buy on the rumor, sell on the news. I wouldn't read too much into it. The only time I really pay attention to what the street thinks about Apple is when earnings are announced.

<comment><USER49> AAPL has dropped from 670 odd over the last few weeks. There is no pattern with announcements.

<comment><USER48> There are only a few product announcements each year, so of course there isn't a correlation with the overall price fluctuations.

However, you can be pretty sure what the price will do a couple of days before and the day of an announcement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> 1\. Apple releases new product

2\. Critics yawn, criticize etc.

3\. AAPL goes down

4\. Many speculate as to what Jobs would or would not have done, joke about rolling in grave, call for Tim Cook to be fired etc.

5\. Apple makes a mint's worth of money, AAPL hits new high.

It's been happening for 5 years. It's not just unsurprising, it's predictable.

</comment><comment><USER51> After clicking on "Shop iPad" it's interesting that they place an ad next to the iPad mini for the regular iPad saying "Just as stunning. Twice as fast." The regular iPad is only $170 more.

</comment><comment><USER52> Someone invent a screen that can change size already, sheesh.

<comment><USER53> a folding screen would be good.

especially if the underside was also an eInk display

<comment><USER52> Yeah or maybe some way to stretch pixels closer or further apart being that you move your face further away from larger screens. Seems a little silly to have so many devices that do the exact same thing but just have different sized screens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> $329 for WIFI only? No thanks!

</comment><comment><USER55> Apple: Pay more for less......and again in 6 months.

<comment><USER56> People buy a brand , not a product.It's like buying a Vuitton bag , it's not better than the other ones , it's just cool to have one , because now people feels they are defined by what they own. Then people try to justify this behavior by repeating apple talking points , so they dont sound like sheeps.

<comment><USER57> This just in: people are not all the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> wow, it's way more expensive than the nexus 7. $330 vs $200 for the bottom.

<comment><USER58> $200 Nexus 7 has 8Gb storage, iPad mini base model has 16Gb. I still think $330 is a little high though.

<comment><USER59> wait a week.

the 16GB Nexus 7 will drop to $200, with the 32GB release.

<comment><USER17> Have you heard anything about what they plan to do with the 8gb when this happens? I've heard they'll stop making them, but it'd be nice to buy one of the leftover stock at a reduced price. I have an 8GB and it's fine for my needs (still 4.7gb free) since I mostly use it for online content.

<comment><USER59> <https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_7_8gb>

appears to already be sold out now

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> What baffles me is the ease by which someone can walk while using and iPad mini with a bicycle between their legs at 0:38.

</comment><comment><USER61> For me the iPad Mini highlights what I think is a serious problem with iBooks: Landscape orientation should give me the option to read a single page at full screen width. I have never found the two page display to be useful. When looking at PDF files online it is great to rotate to landscape and read full width with nice-big type. This is particularly true at night after a long day in front of the computer.

The other thing that iBooks is sorely missing is the ability to use two fingers to zoom in and out of a page. I really don't understand why we have to look at a page with a one inch white border all the way around the page on a digital device, which forces a smaller font to fit the same content.

I think that the iPad mini might just stress the need or a better user experience in software such as iBooks.

</comment><comment><USER62> Apple are exploiting one obvious flaw of the current "accepted wisdom" - <USER2> 16:9 movie-oriented wide-screens are to be foisted on all devices in sight.

Personally, I'm grateful someone is sticking to the 4:3 aspect ratio. If that made a comeback on laptops and monitors, so much better.

</comment><comment><USER63> Oh look it's my Nexus 7 with more marketing speak.

Apple is now on the back foot and is heading towards market saturation and commoditisation via Android and intense foreign competition. Consequently I have held a large short position from 700 and will continue to do so following my sale of AAPL stock following the Samsung case - unless something changes.

You can only win in the brutal consumer electronics space by inventing the future. Otherwise you're just another commodity producer. You can't defeat the entire market by just doing more of the same.

Not impressed.

</comment><comment><USER64> The best priced tablet out there right now is the Barnes and Noble Nook HD+. 9 inches, 1920x1200, for 269 bucks!

If it ran vanilla Android, it would have been a no-brainer for many of us.

<comment><USER65> I have a Nook tablet and like it except for the fact that I can run only B&N blessed apps (of which there are so few).

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I hate that you can't use the iPad mini as a cell phone. It's small enough now that in a lot of situations you can carry it around with you. And in those cases, it would be nice to only have to carry your iPad mini and leave your phone at home.

Sure, with the 3g model you can still use iMessage, Whats App, Skype, etc- but you're missing out on regular voice calls and SMS.

From an engineering perspective- is it that difficult to add a sim card slot and the extra cell antennas?

</comment><comment><USER67> Was hoping for $299, but it still looks like a nice product.

</comment><comment><USER68> 'tis a fine product but $190 for an extra 48Gb of storage? Can we not kill this practice already? I was pretty pissed that Google pulled the same stunt with the Nexus 7. It's 2012. Flash storage is cheap and widely available but Google and Apple (and probably Microsoft) don't want us to have it. It's very irritating behaviour.

</comment><comment><USER69> IMHO Apple learned the lesson of aspect ratio for watching video with the iPhone 5, then forgot it again with this device. They missed out on a huge opportunity to start kicking their entire lineup towards the new aspect ratio and slowly eliminating any sort of Android-like fragmentation that will induce in their lineup.

</comment><comment><USER70> My reaction: I imagine Google/Amazon/B&N must be very happy with this. I am sure Apple will sell a boatload and possibly even own a clear majority of the space, but Apple just threw a huge wave of interest into a market where they are being very clearly undercut on price and not offering that much differentation.

<comment><USER71> Google/Amazon/B&N will be certainly happy with this, but it's because it will make people consume even more internet/books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Change title to " iPad mini" (an space at the beginning so HN doesn't automatically capitalizes it, and lowercase m)

</comment><comment><USER4> The size of the normal iPad is perfect for me. I don't see me ever using this product. On the other hand, I think some people will like this more or this will fit their needs/price range better. Not a very exciting announcement by Apple but not an awful one.

I'm more excited about the new iMacs. They look great.

</comment><comment><USER73> Hello, fragmentation.

Resolution might be the same as iPad 2, but pixel density is different. Therefore an area that is clickable on iPad2 or iPad3 may become too small to click on the iPad mini.

So we had two platforms - iPad2/iPad3 with one tap area size, and iPhone 4/iPhone 5 with another, and now we have three.

<comment><USER74> Click targets work out the same size as an iPhone (iPad was always a bit bigger), so no, this is no big deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> So now with iPad Mini here, what do you think of "Apple's Contradictions" : Think different each time? - [http://blog.cloudmagic.com/2012/10/25/ipad-mini- steve-jobs-a...](http://blog.cloudmagic.com/2012/10/25/ipad-mini-steve-jobs- and-apple/)

</comment><comment><USER76> It's interesting that they also released an iPad 4 but hardly anyone is talking about that. I presume that this is to address the complaints some people had about the iPad 3 performing less well because of the additional overhead from the retina display?

</comment><comment><USER77> When my macbook pro died and I had to get the logic board replaced I tried using my iPad (3) to replace basic web maintenance for the week.

I couldn't add a mouse or command-tab between programs. (without jailbreaking).

I'd pay for an update for these software features.

</comment><comment><USER78> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4683962> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4683980>

</comment><comment><USER79> Want it or not these units are gonna sell like pancakes. All the same goodness but now more portable equals a win. Anyways, I was hoping for a little more fanboy vs apple-hater drama on this thread, I always find that entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER80> It's gonna sell like hotcakes. Also, they probably just iced the iPod Touch.

<comment><USER81> I think at the moment they'd have to try _really_ hard to release a device that didn't sell like hotcakes. What could happen, when they release kind of a dud (I'm not saying they did), is that they lose momentum.

<comment><USER80> I dunno, they could put out another iPod HiFi :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> It's really annoying that the only way to get LTE in Germany on these things (and an iPhone5) is through the shittiest carrier ever.

Why is it so hard to build an iPad or iPhone that speaks LTE on 800MHz?

</comment><comment><USER83> I have nothing against Apple fans.

That said, if you own an iPhone 3G, an iPhone 4, an iPod, an iPod Mini, an iPad, and then go and buy an iPad Mini, I am judging you.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm surprised competitors haven't attacked the $129 3G upcharge more directly. That seems like about $100 of profit right there.

</comment><comment><USER84> I was so ready to buy this but a non-retina tablet at the end of 1012 sounds like a big no no for me, I pass.

</comment><comment><USER85> It's only a tiny but smaller. Should have called it the Slightly-smaller iPad instead.

</comment><comment><USER86> I'm surprised there's so little talk about the new iMac. It's pretty amazing.

</comment><comment><USER87> The iPad mini looks like it could be the perfect remote for smart homes

</comment><comment><USER88> No NFC. Less screen resolution than a Nexus 7. Lame.

</comment><comment><USER89> Think they will make a larger iPad? 13" maybe?

</comment><comment><USER90> Can't watch the videos on linux. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER91> Not the "right price point" for me....

</comment><comment><USER92> But does it come with sandpaper?

</comment><comment><USER93> snooze.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've been looking forward to this product since the rumors started. I've owned iPads and iPhones and iPod touches.

The iPhone (original and 4S) were both great devices but too small. I could carry them everywhere, but the reading and browsing experience was cramped, by necessity of the small screen.

The iPad (original and Retina) are big, and lovely for reading and browsing, but too big to hold with one hand. This really is an issue for me, the way I sit when I'm reading... it ends up limiting my use of what otherwise would be a fantastic device.

So, the mini seems perfect. Light enough to hold, big enough to get a fantastic reading and browsing experience. I know it will be a little cramped compared to the iPad (well, expect it will be, but the same resolution original iPad was not cramped at all) but that's a fine tradeoff for being able to use it, literally, everywhere.

I like that they decided to start at $329 with 16GB, about perfect pricing for me. We spent over $650 on our retina iPad with LTE, and ended up not using the LTE much at all.

For our startup, which is heavily involved in iOS, and all of us have iOS devices, we will probably buy 2-3 of these minis.

In fact, I think I'm personally, done with the iPad and iPhone... I don't need the phone part (which is why I've mostly bought iPod touches) .... only went with it because the original iPad was not as portable as I'd like.

So, I'm totally stoked that this device is as it was rumored... I see no downsides to it at all.

<comment><USER94> I totally agree. I really like my iPad for a lot of things, but it has been disappointing for pleasure reading of books because it is just too heavy.

Given that my primary use case will be reading, I now have to decide between a Kindle Paperwhite or the iPad Mini, with the one additional input that my kids would love to have another iPad in the house.

<comment><USER95> I use a Kindle for reading simply because of the lack of distractions. On the iPad I see notifications every time someone posts on Facebook, every time I get a new e-mail... it's hard to lose myself in the book.

<comment><USER96> Why don't you simply turn off notifications? Or even better, enabled the 'do not disturb' mode in the settings app?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Funny how it's only 1.9 square centimeters larger than the iPhone 5, and I'm guessing it lacks a call feature. Who does phone calls nowadays anyway right? And this old iPod Touch is incredibly obsolete now anyway, nobody uses that anymore.</comment>


A Moment of Silence for the Black and Brown Talent That Grew on Vine - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/28/499681576/vine-ending-grew-black-brown-talent <comment><USER2> My problem with Vine is that it was really hard to find good content. There were so many people just making clips of themselves doing stupid crap. Honestly, the only good stuff I found on Vine while it was up was Thomas Sanders' content.

<comment><USER3> Isn't that a problem with Twitter, Instagram, etc, as well?

<comment><USER2> Yes. But Vine is in the video space, where it's competing with YouTube, which has a massive back catalogue, and an abundance of originality, good content and talent (yes, really. You may not be looking in the right places, but it's there), which is readily discoverable, and already well known, (CGPGrey, ViHart, Veritasium, VSauce, Vlogbrothers, Schmoyoho, PewDiePie, Markiplier, CrashCourse, Extra Credits, The Jimquisition, Zero Punctuation, TotalBiscuit, PBSDigital, Errant Signal, XboxAhoy, charlieissocoollike, lonelygirl15, The Show With Ze Frank, TomSka, Eddsworld, CollegeHumor, The Game Theorists, Songs to Wear Pants to, MinutePhysics, Hannah Hart, and countless more). Even if you don't like all of it, there's usually something there for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, these people couldn't have the same success on youtube?

<comment><USER5> No looping means 6 second content will not have any impact on the viewer. Maybe producing a 5 minute video and a 6 second video needs different skills.

<comment><USER6> The solution seems easy: replicate your 6 seconds clip 50 times and you'll have a 5 minutes video to upload to youtube.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone want to take over Vine?

<comment><USER8> Pornhub, apparently.

<comment><USER9> Huh. He's not joking: [https://www.cnet.com/news/pornhub-offers-to-buy- vine-6-secon...](https://www.cnet.com/news/pornhub-offers-to-buy- vine-6-seconds-twitter-jack-dorsey/)

<comment><USER10> Seems more like opportunistic PR than a serious offer.

<comment><USER11> I dunno. 6 seconds isn't that short a time in the life of a porn user.

<comment><USER12> This is the funniest thing I have ever seen on HN. Well played, sir.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So in "black and brown", what ethnicities qualify as brown? Does it include some, all, or none of the black category?

<comment><USER14> Hispanics, it says so in the article.

>According to a Pew Research Center survey last year, almost a quarter of teens used Vine; and of those surveyed, 31 percent identified as black (non- Hispanic) and 24 percent as Hispanic.

<comment><USER13> It doesn't directly state that equivalence, and it seems weird that "black and brown" would exclude groups like middle easterners that are also darker- skinned minorities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why would they do this? Seems rather short sighted.

<comment><USER15> Was probably a lot of maintenance effort for something that didn't catch on widely and duplicated Twitter's own video upload feature, except with more limitations (no videos longer than six seconds, in app recording only). Also, curiously enough it was labelled racist because of exactly the same aspects now being portrayed as positive: [http://www.digitalamerica.org/vine- redefining-racial-stereot...](http://www.digitalamerica.org/vine-redefining- racial-stereotyping-in-six-seconds-jason-tham/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Most racist post I've ever seen on Hackernews. The color of these people's skin has no bearing on their success.

<comment><USER17> This is on _Codeswitch_ \- their blog by PoC for PoC issues.

It's about the fact that the platform was disproportionately populated and loved by young creative Black and Latinx people.

Why do I post.</comment></comment>


Early Access! New Intro to Ember.js Online Class - <AUTHOR> https://teamgaslight.com/training/courses/14-early-access-new-introduction-to-emberjs

<comment><USER2> I'll probably subscribe if my work decides on Ember.js. The fact that Tom Dale is one of the instructor is a big sell for me.</comment>